I actually laughed when I read this ....

[ausrock]

Regebro,

The problem is that YOU choose to interpret my comments that way, nothing more and nothing less!


Reel,

Having a very Scandanavian ancestry but being fortunate enough to come from a different part of the world (nothing against Sverige or Norge, I generally keep in touch with family in Ludvika and to a lesser degree, Sandnes and Bergen), I've had over 50 years to observe that a considerable percentage of people from that general area of the world are blissfully unaware that they are arrogantly argumentative, blindly self opinionated and that just maybe, they are not always right..................but don't waste time trying to tell them that, culturally, it is beyond their comprehension.

 

[regebro]

As always, when arguments run out, you guys go personal. It's really fantastically silly. And Reel, no, I have stopped forgiving you, because you will start lying and coming with personal attacks again, because you always do every time somebody (not just me) says anything that is not exactly what you wanted to hear. And everytime when i confront you witj it you end up making excuses and saying that it's nothing personal and the like. And soon enough you start behaving like a dunderhead again. Stop it, and I'll forgive you,

This thread is excellent proof that this forum is full of people who can not adequately be described as anything else than religiously fanatic analogheads, who explode in dogmatic furor as soon as somebody even dares to mention, that maybe, just maybe, that how you use the equipment is more important than that it confirms to the requirements of the International Church of Analog.

It's amazingly silly.

 

[Dr ZEE]

This thread is excellent proof that this forum is full of people who can not adequately be described as anything else than religiously fanatic analogheads, who explode in dogmatic furor as soon as somebody even dares to mention, that maybe, just maybe, that how you use the equipment is more important than that it confirms to the requirements of the International Church of Analog.

...hah. Is it so , really?
That's cool! I don't mind. Religion is not a derogative word after all.

Let me add up then ... .
Here's how I can "sum'it'up":
This is Digital Recording
This Is Analog Recording

Yeah, sure it's all about where you go. It does not metter what you drive. It's just a car, dude...

**********
Silly or not, but if you think for a minute, you'll see that there's some "truth" in my analogy.
BTW, in a sense, I actually glad that so many / most / allot of producers 'ignore' or 'stay away from' analog. It's like always having better car in the race. it's a competitive world

/respects and blessings

 

[ausrock]

Gee, I wonder if I offended someone ................ah well, back to archiving tracks off my digital recorder .

 

[Beck]

for what it's worth you guys and your bickering kill me ... why not expend that energy on making records... who cares about the format!? write some good shit and record it on whatever you have, or prefer. that argument is getting sooooooo ooooold... sheesh - jv

This is an analog forum. Digital vs. analog is bound to come up from time to time. I hear people arguing more vehemently on sports radio about baseball. We could all go away and not post anything at all about anything. That would save a bunch of time.

Some people really care about the recording format. It's as critical as any other aspect. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that, all things being equal (talent, peripheral equipment, etc), the single most important thing a person can do to improve the sonic nature of his/her music is to put it on analog tape. That is my standing recommendation to anyone asking about “recording secrets.”

The analog forum is one of the few places on the bbs where experienced professionals and seasoned hobbyists have an impact. In that way it is quite unique. The people who stumble across this forum before they invest lots of time and money in digital are a step ahead of their peers. The sooner one learns how widespread analog recording is in the professional music industry the better. If all one does is read popular rags, product brochures, and listen to music store salesmen they will never know.

As often as this issue may come up there are still people hearing it for the first time. It is a relevant issue of great consequence in my opinion.

-Tim

 

[A Reel Person]

The main point of this topic is to see how silly the analog/digital debate has become

............................

 

[acorec]

Just like "monty", I too fell into the digital pit before quickly recovering and "going analog" . I think that calling it being "brainwashed", at least from my side of things, would be pretty accurate.

Btw, "reality is analog" ... I like that!

~Daniel

The real world is purely digital. Almost all questions are answered "yes" or "no"

That is digital "1" or "0"

 

[acorec]

The main point of this topic is to see how silly the analog/digital debate has become............................

The dabate is silly. I agree. There are so many analog and so many digital productions around that are done by very good engineers. With a great talanted engineer, digital vs, analog is a totally moot point.


I defy anyone to listen to Slipperman's work (DAW) and even question whether it is analog or digital. You would not even know (or care).

 

[SteveMac]

...
for what it's worth you guys and your bickering kill me ... why not expend that energy on making records... who cares about the format!? write some good shit and record it on whatever you have, or prefer. that argument is getting sooooooo ooooold... sheesh - jv

OK, then let's move on to something else. How about the current state of popular music.

 

[acorec]

...hah. Is it so , really?
That's cool! I don't mind. Religion is not a derogative word after all.

Let me add up then ... .
Here's how I can "sum'it'up":
This is Digital Recording
This Is Analog Recording

Yeah, sure it's all about where you go. It does not metter what you drive. It's just a car, dude...

**********
Silly or not, but if you think for a minute, you'll see that there's some "truth" in my analogy.
BTW, in a sense, I actually glad that so many / most / allot of producers 'ignore' or 'stay away from' analog. It's like always having better car in the race. it's a competitive world

/respects and blessings

Take foot out of mouth.

Try a real digital recording system and then make your arguments. I agree with you on the $200 stuff, but a good analog recorder was not $200 like on eBay. In it's day, a Tascam or Fostex R to R multitrack recorder went from $2000-6000. That was serious cash back then and probably translates to over $10,000 in today's dollars. For that kind'a money you can get a RADAR setup that will trash mostly all analog recorders except the totally pro machines like the Studer. And even with the Studer 24 track sold today. I hear no discernable difference.

 

[Beck]

I hear a huge difference in popular music -- an industry wide difference. I didn't hear the change so drastically when CD first came out. I can compare an old CD to a newer one and I will prefer the older version, which stayed in the analog realm until the CD stage.

When things started getting hard to listen to is when more and more studios began laying tracks in digital. Once both ends were digital the sonic nature of music went into a dive and it's never been the same. My ears are bleeding.

Comparing old LPs or open reel to the same album on CD -- I defy anyone (who can hear) to say the "digitally remastered" CD sounds as good or better. I hear the same tunes on CD or radio and it’s so thin and lifeless. Not many people have the luxury of A/B comparisons, but if you do give a whirl.

I can understand there are people who can't hear it. But even from that group there are probably more people that don't know they hear it. They just feel annoyed and uncomfortable, but don't know why. Its like someone sitting in a room painted red. They may be able to say they feel angry or out of sorts, but still not be able to connect the color of the room to the emotion.

TO ME LISTENING TO DIGITALLY ALTERED MUSIC IS LIKE EATING MY FAVORITE FOOD WHEN I HAVE A COLD – VERY UNSATISFYING, LIKE SOMETHING IS MISSING.

The debate really boils down to the hearing of the individual. But you can’t tell someone something is not there just because you can’t hear it. That is not proof that musically sensitive persons with outstanding hearing can’t hear it. Just like you can’t point to a thermostat and say “it’s not warm in here” if another person in that room says they feel warm.


-Tim

 

[acorec]

I hear a huge difference in popular music -- an industry wide difference. I didn't hear the change so drastically when CD first came out. I can compare an old CD to a newer one and I will prefer the older version, which stayed in the analog realm until the CD stage.

When things started getting hard to listen to is when more and more studios began laying tracks in digital. Once both ends were digital the sonic nature of music went into a dive and it's never been the same. My ears are bleeding.

Comparing old LPs or open reel to the same album on CD -- I defy anyone (who can hear) to say the "digitally remastered" CD sounds as good or better. I hear the same tunes on CD or radio and it’s so thin and lifeless. Not many people have the luxury of A/B comparisons, but if you do give a whirl.

I can understand there are people who can't hear it. But even from that group there are probably more people that don't know they hear it. They just feel annoyed and uncomfortable, but don't know why. Its like someone sitting in a room painted red. They may be able to say they feel angry or out of sorts, but still not be able to connect the color of the room to the emotion.

TO ME LISTENING TO DIGITALLY ALTERED MUSIC IS LIKE EATING MY FAVORITE FOOD WHEN I HAVE A COLD – VERY UNSATISFYING, LIKE SOMETHING IS MISSING.

The debate really boils down to the hearing of the individual. But you can’t tell someone something is not there just because you can’t hear it. That is not proof that musically sensitive persons with outstanding hearing can’t hear it. Just like you can’t point to a thermostat and say “it’s not warm in here” if another person in that room says they feel warm.


-Tim

You should scoot on over there to the M.A.R.S.H. BBS and read/listen to my old buddy Slipperman. He pretty much tells why the new music sounds the way it does and how the recording and mixing techniques have changed. Very little of it has to do with good digital recordings and *everything* has to do with the way that the modern producers and artists want to hear it.

CD is the worst format ever. It is CDs that people compare to LPs or Tape that sets off this Analog vs. Digital debate all the time. I do not have "golden ears" (they are pretty damn good) but I have heard good digital recording systems that sound totally analog and have heard stuff like Pro-tools (low end) and Nuendo type DAW stuff that sucks totally. It is mostly cheap hardware (a/d, d/a) and some problems in software. The end product of a good digital system has all the characteristics of a good analog system if the engineering and mixing are done right. The difference between a porta-studio and a 2" pro analog machine is night and day, but all these stupid arguments pit expensive analog recorders against $200 digital workstations (porta-studio quality of the digital age).

I don't care if people want to trash analog or digital, but they should know from experience what they are talking about and I see little of that. I do both and though no longer a pro, I know for sure that both digital and analog have their strongpoints and limitations, but sound is not really one of them if you pit them against each other keeping in mind the intended design.

A RADAR system vs. Studer 2". Both 24 track, both designed for professional recording, pretty much the same sound.

A porta-studio vs. Alesis HD system = Alesis hands down.
A Studer vs. Alesis HD Sytem= Studer hands down.

You can't just draw a line in the sand and say the analog is better and digital sucks because I can easily prove you wrong. You do have many examples of digital stuff that was done poorly, and of course, anything done poorly is done poorly.

And lastly, no one can tell you that you don't hear something that you hear. That is unfair to you as a listener. Digital still has a long way to go for the home recorder and the industry is moving very fast. The problem I have with digital is that the formats seem to change too fast and what was here today is gone tomorrow. Analog machines can play tapes from almost the very inception of the recorder and that, to me, is a much more important point than all these sound debates. Who cares if the sound is great or not if you can't play it back in a few years?

 

[Dr ZEE]

Take foot out of mouth.

why should I? I say what I say not to prove anything. I don't try to change anybody's mind, really... Let them have their 'cake' and enjoy the party

Try a real digital recording system ...

I did. (actually few of 'them')
so...?
btw, real digital recording system - I gotta write this down to add it up to my "funny tech-nonsense terms collection" . I know, it's just 'wording', but I love that phrase

also, I must add here, that I do compare 'my result' with 'my result' (I compare apple to apple - same dude, same guitar, same taste, same brain, same bank account ). So the deficit of technical knowledge and producer's tallent, or hearing problems are not the factors in my experiment, and thus, the conclusion I have come to is valid... It is valid to me!. In my "experiment" analog based recording gave me way much better result.

Again, I don't need to change anybody's mind about what is 'better', but I simply share my personal experience with a 'lil' advice: if you have not try analog recording yet (especially in your HOME-studio!) - do it! and see (hear) for yourself. That's all.

/respects

 

[Dr ZEE]

The real world is purely digital. Almost all questions are answered "yes" or "no"
That is digital "1" or "0"

Huh! Lovely! I love technological philosophy.
Here's my move in that 'chess game':

In Digital World - between "YES" and "NO" The Void dwells.
In Real World (analog that is) - The Void is full of wonders.

....

/respects

 

[acorec]

why should I? I say what I say not to prove anything. I don't try to change anybody's mind, really... Let them have their 'cake' and enjoy the party



I did. (actually few of 'them')
so...?
btw, real digital recording system - I gotta write this down to add it up to my "funny tech-nonsense terms collection" . I know, it's just 'wording', but I love that phrase

also, I must add here, that I do compare 'my result' with 'my result' (I compare apple to apple - same dude, same guitar, same taste, same brain, same bank account ). So the deficit of technical knowledge and producer's tallent, or hearing problems are not the factors in my experiment, and thus, the conclusion I have come to is valid... It is valid to me!. In my "experiment" analog based recording gave me way much better result.

Again, I don't need to change anybody's mind about what is 'better', but I simply share my personal experience with a 'lil' advice: if you have not try analog recording yet (especially in your HOME-studio!) - do it! and see (hear) for yourself. That's all.

/respects

Fair enough. If it is valid to you, you are the one making your own decisions. I never try to change things if the person writing of their experiences understands all the variables. I do analog recording on an MCI 2" 24 track recorder and love it for some things. I also love my Fostec D2424LV digital HD recorder because the A/D, D/A convs are the balls. Both get great sound and more than a few analog heads were shocked when they thought that their recording was going through the MCI (I thread a tape before each session just in case I need it for something). They actually think I am using it until they come in the room to listen to a track, then they look at the MCI and comment. I tell them it is digital and point to the Fostex. Gets them everytime. ( The MCI is great for bed-tracks for certain stuff like drums and bass when I have to get the Tape Compression sound. The song dictates if I use it at all). Of coarse, if they pay for tape and want analog, I use analog all around. I can't tell anymore what songs were recorded on what 'cause in the end, the mixes stand out on their own.

 

[tanoka]

I've A/Bed many original records from 6ts and 7ts with recent digitally remastered vinyl re-issues and the difference is vast! Many vinyl pressing companies I've contacted can only cut from CD masters so all the labels just go along with it even when they have a perfectly good master tape. Although I'm part of the analog choir I don't hate A-D-A recordings as long as they stay out of my apartment.

 

[regebro]

The main point of this topic is to see how silly the analog/digital debate has become

exactly.




.

 

[regebro]

Huh! Lovely! I love technological philosophy.
Here's my move in that 'chess game':

In Digital World - between "YES" and "NO" The Void dwells.
In Real World (analog that is) - The Void is full of wonders.

....

/respects

Actually, the world IS digital, on a quantum level. I tried to calculate how many bits you would need to have greater resolution than analog tape, but I couldn't find any reliable numbers on how many magnetic particles per square inch tape had. But some educated guessing showed it to be maybe 40 bits. Peoples: we are already at 32.

The myth that the analog sound lies in the fact that it is analog is just that: a myth. And it has been a myth since 12-bit recording was abandoned. It lies somewhere else (I have my theories).

 

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by A Reel Person:
The main point of this topic is to see how silly the analog/digital debate has become

exactly.
.

********
Yeah, yeah yeah... it's all just silly blah. Waste of time. Yada yada...

maybe..
not for me , so
I like humor, I like a lil of word-fight and all that, but in my case, actually the 'issue' digital vs analog as main recording method has become very serious and practical matter.
I also think that the issue is VERY relevent to specificly 'home recording', to highlight here, that home-based studio recording in most cases (?) is to record your own music, i.e. the producer also is a composer, songwriter, player, singer - all at the same time.
Regardless of how much brains, tallent, creative energy and simply ability to work productively Xhours/per day one person can be - there's a limit there. So do you like it or not, you as musician/producer have to find your focus,
Here's what I am aiming here at.
To try to sum it up as shortly as I can. Being a pretty long time digital-recording based self-producer I have noticed something for myself. While chasing the overall quality of the final product (master mix) and working with various digital recording tools (standalone HD recorders plus computer-based mutitrack recording plus all the variety of production software) - I always (every step of the way) have to 'look over the shoulder' ... because in digital domain, what you really deal with is not 'real thing' - but rather information about 'real thing' - you deal with data.
You may say, well, so what? at the end it does not matter.
Maybe so. You can sure get the result that pleases you, - If you are lucky. Or if you really do dig deep into every step on the way - meaning you really do know what's happening to the 'data' while you click this and click that.
You can completely ignore all this and just use your ear as judge. That's cool, but then you are playing game with your recording material - and you don't know where and when you cheat yourself (during complex playing-recording-producing process it is very easy to miss many details, but they will all sum-up at the end into one "mysterious" ugly 'snow ball', and if you do pay attention, then you will notice it and will ask yourself: what the hell is wrong with this picture????). And as we all know, the 'software developer' is not going to tell you what's going on. You get a nice set of buttons, knobs and sliders and even needle-VU-metters on your screen - just to make you feel right and comfy' , you are not going to find in 'DAW user manual' that the 'VU metters on your screen is actully a special 'visual' and pretty sophisticated program which is designed to look as you as 'customer' wish it to look like and act like.... arhhhhhhhhhh
Or you can really study digital recording and processing technology and dig deep into every step on the way ... which is right thing to do, but isn't easy (btw, the more you actually know about it - less you like it... that's just my experience ). But again, I repete again - the digital 'tools' are not completely open to you - you can't really know 100% what's going on.
OK. So, say, you do feel fine technical-knowledge-wise in digital domain and feel (or 'know for sure') that you do everything right. That's pretty good, but you still have to deal with all the 'little and big pimps' all the way through.
And then the time comes to actually playing your nasty guitar or drums or trumpet or sing or you name it - ...here Ya go.
So how does it go? What comes in - comes out? Right? - Nop. Not so. Or maybe too much so... depends on how you look at it. Either way you start doing this and theat, treating this, treating that etc etc... working it out, another words, trying to get again something which could be achieved easier, better way.
If you know well digital recording technology - then you know as well, that it DOES NOT work as "click and play". It is only being sold to you that way .

Now, you see, I know I am going to strike some nerve here, but I am going to say this: with analog recording it is as simple as "push play/rec" and play.
And as result what you get? - you get the 'analog recording' which you 'would wish' and burn your brains out trying to get with 'other way of recording'

I am not going to go through analog recording 'issues'. I just say: "all analog recording issues are in your hands", cos they are damn analog.
No, I will not give up my computer and HD recorders. I'm not mad, you know ... but it will serve me as supplement, not the core.

So, well, to me it is a big deal. Analog recording frees allots of mind and energy for me, so I can spend more of it on actually playing/performing.
So at the end - it IS pretty serious discussion

/respects,

*********
p.s.
I was just going through some older magazines... interesting reads all over the place, stuff that came out during 'rising star of DAW and MDM'... heh heh
Here a quote from article, titled: "Recording Drums The MDM Way". This is from RECORDING magazine april 1998.
The article actually ok overall, but the 'pre-attitude' of the time is there as well:

It's true that years of listening to analog have resulter in our ears and minds being used to hearing a certain way. Along comes the digital spider and sits down beside Little Miss Analog, and scares her while she's recording her curves and waves.

HAH HAH HAH! Ohhhhhhhhh. That's so poetic, dude....
There's also a top-page highlight for the article there, that reads:

Digital recorders sound different from analog ones. Does that mean they require different drum recording techniques to sound good? ---- (Hint: yes.)

Oooooo-KEY....
How about start the reels and just drum, damn it!?
that's what I do

/respects

 

[cjacek]

I feel the analog vs digital debate, albeit repeated over and over, is a valid one and keeps the topic "fresh" enough so that people who are new to recording and drop by this site, via google search of whatever, see that analog is a viable alternative to digital. (That should be the other way around, shouldn't it ?). It is important that especially the newbies outthere not make the mistake believing that digital is the holy grail of tracking their music, as the media and marketing depts want you to believe. Oh, how I wish I was exposed to many of the posts on this forum at the time I dabbled around with digital, wasted time and money and thought, like many still think, that analog is a joke and that surely the change to digital is for the better. The one thing this thread is about is TRACKING with digital and not really about digital in general. I also have stated previously and more recently and would like to reiterate that I have "gone analog" not purely on the assumption that it sounds "better" or superior to good digital systems but that it is so very intuitive, easy and actually fun to work with and the thought that something "physical" is actually happening to the signal from point A to B is very comforting. To illustrate my point better and more aggressively, let me point out that if presented with a top of the line digital setup or a TASCAM 244 or 246 portastudio, I'd prefer to work with the latter and I'd most likely get the sound I'm lookin' for.

Digital is synonymous with an abstract template for the original sound. I don't want that.

Additionally, this is the Analog Only forum and we have every right to feel PASSIONATE & PROUD about our gear and ANNOUNCE it every chance we get, even trash digital if we want to. This is a discussion and statements which suggest changing the topic or saying that "this is getting old" and to "move on" etc ... is N/A.

Peace my brothas!

~Daniel